Okay, so I've been thinking about it, and there are games out there that are nearly perfect in there own rights and it's just not disputed because more than most can agree on it, because it just has all the right stuff ya know?

When looking at Assassins Creed and reading different forums it seems no one can ever be happy when it comes to this series may it be from the gameplay being to linear, the actual character, gameplay, or the story, the list goes on. The closest consensus on a great AC game is AC2 which seemed to be the one alot of people tend to like or reference. Even then you have people that hate/dislike Ezio's story and what he stood for as an Assassin.

So my question to you is what elements do you think need to be added or taken away to find that happy median to get that awesome game? One that could unite players. What do you think would make it right so people would go "That was one of the best games I've ever played". I know there is a limit here because these games are based off history and fiction (with a hint of supernatural) but I'm sure it's possible.

I know everybody is entitled to their own opinion and you can never make everyone truly happy, but I'm just curious to know what you guys think. Do you even think it's possible to make a good AC game anymore? Is the series dead in your opinion, or is it finally taking a step in the right direction?

And let's not say Bring Ezio back. You will be thrown into the depths of the internet. lol.

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 09:14 PM

Nope. Not after they have such a huge fanbase and ever changing direction.

I-Like-Pie45

06-23-2013, 09:15 PM

The solution is simple: Remove all assassinations from Assassin's Creed!

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:15 PM

A well designed, fun and consistent game will make most people overlook any short comings such as lack of ambient music or a "boring" (Connor) or "annoying" (Ezio) main character...

I see people defend Joel from the last of us when someone calls him boring...the funny thing?? they defend him with the same things WE use as Connor fans to defend Connor such as "he went through a lot"

silvermercy

06-23-2013, 09:17 PM

I don't think that's even possible! lol To make everyone happy... Especially with AC it's even more difficult because we have different settings, different characters, different gameplay elements and so on...

Even in games where the general theme remains more stable you still have people complain. For example, in the new Thief 4 game you have old fans complaining about Garrett's new voice ("omg, this sucksss, it's not Thief anymore..."). For new fans it's same difference.

lothario-da-be

06-23-2013, 09:19 PM

No, you can never please two groups with 1 game, look at resident evil 6.

ArabianFrost

06-23-2013, 09:30 PM

Non-linearity, with better rewards leaning to those who stay true to the cores of the game. Very simple. Ever played Far Cry 3? It pretty much nailed pandering to players of all fanbases.

Of course, non-linearity should never mean to stop developing the core pillars. Make the game non-linear, but develop the stealth, make it more advanced. Another prime example of the is Splinter Cell: Blacklist. The game is, at the core, a stealth game with developed stealth mechanics, but if you are new to the series OR you're just in for a light experience, then you can enjoy a more conspicuous approach, but you'll probably enjoy the stealth more as it's far more developed.

As for the story, just make a proper realistic character and never take people's opinion of the generic hero. The hardcore fans who follow the series religiously will probably enjoy a well-made character and the casuals are just in it for the game, so they probably won't care much as long as they get good gameplay.

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 09:34 PM

A well designed, fun and consistent game will make most people overlook any short comings such as lack of ambient music or a "boring" (Connor) or "annoying" (Ezio) main character...

I see people defend Joel from the last of us when someone calls him boring...the funny thing?? they defend him with the same things WE use as Connor fans to defend Connor such as "he went through a lot"

"WE use as Connor fans." Are you saying that I'm a Connor fan!? :mad: I'm offended that you said I would like a boring character like that! I hate AC because it's changed so much. Ahhh!

No but really it's funny to me when somebody says a character is too boring. Are all characters suppose to be witty, quirky, funny, loud, obnoxious, sexy, mysterious, and cool? What people need to realize is that ,that is not the case and not every character is like that. If a character is "boring" they more than likely made that way for a reason. which is a subtle way of driving the character development of that certain character. As a person that is currently playing TLoU I honestly like Joel. He reminds me a lot of an actual friend of mine, but there is reason for the way he acts. He doesn't have to be the center of attention to be a well developed great character.

This wasn't targeted at you M just a rant. haha.

lothario-da-be

06-23-2013, 09:34 PM

Non-linearity, with better rewards leaning to those who stay true to the cores of the game. Very simple. Ever played Far Cry 3? It pretty much nailed pandering to players of all fanbases.

Of course, non-linearity should never mean to stop developing the core pillars. Make the game non-linear, but develop the stealth, make it more advanced. Another prime example of the is Splinter Cell: Blacklist. The game is, at the core, a stealth game with developed stealth mechanics, but if you are new to the series OR you're just in for a light experience, then you can enjoy a more conspicuous approach, but you'll probably enjoy the stealth more as it's far more developed.

As for the story, just make a proper realistic character and never take people's opinion of the generic hero. The hardcore fans who follow the series religiously will probably enjoy a well-made character and the casuals are just in it for the game, so they probably won't care much as long as they get good gameplay.
You nailed it too.

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:39 PM

"WE use as Connor fans." Are you saying that I'm a Connor fan!? :mad: I'm offended that you said I would like a boring character like that! I hate AC because it's changed so much. Ahhh!

No but really it's funny to me when somebody says a character is too boring. Are all characters suppose to be witty, quirky, funny, loud, obnoxious, sexy, mysterious, and cool? What people need to realize is that the case and not everybody is like that. If a character is "boring" they more than likely made that way for a reason. which is a subtle way of driving the character development of that certain character. As a person that is currently playing TLoU I honestly like Joel. He reminds me a lot of an actual friend of mine, but there is reason for the way he acts. He doesn't have to be the center of attention to be a well developed great character.

This wasn't targeted at you M just a rant. haha.
Ahaha xD, oh I know it wasn't directed at me..i don`t have a standard for "better character". for me a charismatic character can be just good as a stoic character. So far, I`m enjoying Joel too :D

lothario-da-be

06-23-2013, 09:43 PM

Ahaha xD, oh I know it wasn't directed at me..i don`t have a standard for "better character". for me a charismatic character can be just good as a stoic character. So far, I`m enjoying Joel too :D
Ezio is pretty charismatic.:)

montagemik

06-23-2013, 09:44 PM

Non-linearity, with better rewards leaning to those who stay true to the cores of the game. Very simple. Ever played Far Cry 3? It pretty much nailed pandering to players of all fanbases.

Guess i'm the exception to the rule then - No interest in playing 'Far Cry 3' - Can't stand 1st person perspective gameplay .
So it doesn't pander to my playing preferences. :nonchalance:

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:45 PM

Ezio is pretty charismatic.:)
Indeed....so Is John Marston

for me, John > Ezio

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:46 PM

Guess i'm the exception to the rule then - No interest in playing 'Far Cry 3' - Can't stand 1st person perspective gameplay .
So it doesn't pander to my playing preferences. :nonchalance:
I think that`s different....he probably means that it panders to all people who like FPP...

lothario-da-be

06-23-2013, 09:46 PM

Indeed....so Is John Marston

for me, John > Ezio
For me Ezio > John, yeah i am sorry, but i don't like Marston that much, maybe when i will replay RDR i am gonna like him more.

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:47 PM

For me Ezio > John, yeah i am sorry, but i don't like Marston that much, maybe when i will replay RDR i am gonna like him more.
I don`t think you`ll like him if you play a second time....unless you for some reason did not immerse yourself enough with the game...I liked John Marston the first time...

silvermercy

06-23-2013, 09:52 PM

The hardcore fans who follow the series religiously will probably enjoy a well-made character and the casuals are just in it for the game, so they probably won't care much as long as they get good gameplay.
Hmm... I had the feeling casuals care more about the story and character (hence why so many Americans bought AC3. It was marketed to them for the story and history - Freedom and such). At least that's my impression. Hardcore ones care for the gameplay such as stealth, weapons design etc (AND story/characters).

Megas_Doux

06-23-2013, 09:54 PM

Nope. Not after they have such a huge fanbase and ever changing direction.

This!

Some people consider Altair and Connor boring, others think Ezio as a very easy "approach". Many people love naval, many hate it, some think that ACB´s story is very good, others appreciate a grey area between templars and Assassins, etc etc etc.

I, although acknowledge the "dullness" of the AC3´s setting, think that is a nice change of pace having a native "true" american as a protagonist, others just cant stand Boston, NY and the Frontier. You could NEVER please everybody in AC.

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 09:54 PM

Ahh... RDR another game I have yet to finish. I really need to start finishing games instead of buying them. Haha. John another character I really like. There is just something about it.

Hey How about the character mix of John and Ezio!? The Stoic and caring playboy?

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 09:55 PM

You can never please everybody. There are people here who love the first AC in all its simplicity because of its simplicity, and those who hate it because they find it repetitive and boring. AC2 seems to have come closest so far to pleasing both fans of the first game and casual players who prefer more action. (M is an exception. ;) ) After that the series started to lose direction and didn't seem to know who it wanted to cater to anymore.

The happiest medium would be to have a game that offers enough challenge to hardcore players while also being enjoyable for casuals. Stealth and combat would be evenly balanced and there would be plenty of content to keep you coming back. Thus far no AC game has quite found that balance. Even AC2 which is generally the most praised entry in the series suffered from too easy combat and dumb-as-brick AI.

Theoretically finding the right balance doesn't seem like an impossible task, but in practice it's not that easy when the series has grown so large in scope. It's not as simple as saying "go back to AC1 formula" or "bring back Ezio" or "make it so hard it'll scare away the casuals". None of those options would make a perfect AC game.

ArabianFrost

06-23-2013, 09:56 PM

Indeed....so Is John Marston

for me, John > Ezio

Yeah. both are pretty charismatic, but Marston is more down-to-earth I feel. Moreover, Marston is far more deep. For a someone who was an orphan and a *****'s son, John was very philosophical and critical, while Ezio, the Italian noble, only started to be somewhat of deep thought at his final game, in the final hours.

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 09:56 PM

Hmm... I had the feeling casuals care more about the story and character (hence why so many Americans bought AC3. It was marketed to them for the story and history - Freedom and such). At least that's my impression. Hardcore ones care for the gameplay such as stealth, weapons design etc (AND story/characters).
I think everyone has a narrow interpretation of what a casual gamer is....a casual gamer can care most for gameplay, because he/she`s playing the game for the game, not to watch a movie....I certainly met casuals who`d rather skip all the cutscenes to play the game and rate their entire experience based on JUST the gameplay...Casual gaming includes so many variations of people

Megas_Doux

06-23-2013, 09:57 PM

Hmm... I had the feeling casuals care more about the story and character (hence why so many Americans bought AC3. It was marketed to them for the story and history - Freedom and such). At least that's my impression. Hardcore ones care for the gameplay such as stealth, weapons design etc (AND story/characters).

It is hard to define what a "casual or a "hardcore" likes!

To me "casuals" do not care a lot about the story, hence why ACB is the second better fan rated game in the franchise......

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 09:58 PM

It is hard to define what a "casual or a "hardcore" likes!

To me "casuals" do not care a lot about the story, hence why ACB is the second better fan rated game in the franchise......

So you also think AC2's story sucked, since that is the most popular one?

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 10:00 PM

So you also think AC2's story sucked, since that is the most popular one?
Am I allowed to think that?? :O

ArabianFrost

06-23-2013, 10:01 PM

You can never please everybody. There are people here who love the first AC in all its simplicity because of its simplicity, and those who hate it because they find it repetitive and boring. AC2 seems to have come closest so far to pleasing both fans of the first game and casual players who prefer more action. (M is an exception. ;) ) After that the series started to lose direction and didn't seem to know who it wanted to cater to anymore.

The happiest medium would be to have a game that offers enough challenge to hardcore players while also being enjoyable for casuals. Stealth and combat would be evenly balanced and there would be plenty of content to keep you coming back. Thus far no AC game has quite found that balance. Even AC2 which is generally the most praised entry in the series suffered from too easy combat and dumb-as-brick AI.

Theoretically finding the right balance doesn't seem like an impossible task, but in practice it's not that easy when the series has grown so large in scope. It's not as simple as saying "go back to AC1 formula" or "bring back Ezio" or "make it so hard it'll scare away the casuals". None of those options would make a perfect AC game.

From what the devs say, I'd say AC4 might just be the perfect middle ground.

Edward is a charismatic pirate, but also one that questions his belief and has flaws.

Combat is difficult, but it can eventually be eased by purchasing upgrades for Edward.

Stealth is encouraged and enhanced, but you still have the option to go in guns-blazing.

Naval is there and plenty for any who want that, but the fans who don't like naval and prefer land can take on ships by swimming to their targets, then assassinating them as they would on land.

If they stay true to their word and craft it as their words suggest with hAC4, they can make a universally enjoyable game.

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 10:03 PM

Hmm... I had the feeling casuals care more about the story and character (hence why so many Americans bought AC3. It was marketed to them for the story and history - Freedom and such). At least that's my impression. Hardcore ones care for the gameplay such as stealth, weapons design etc (AND story/characters).

Actually, as an american buyer. I must say I did buy into the story aspect of it, because I'm an overall fan of the series but also because this is one of my favorite times in history. I was curious to see how things would play out and how he would be involved with shaping the nation. Gameplay is just as imporant! Stealth eh...it worked for my playing style, but I fully understand the complaints that people have about it!

Megas_Doux

06-23-2013, 10:04 PM

So you also think AC2's story sucked, since that is the most popular one?

No!

AC2´s story was solid! And even though is not my favorite, I easily can understand why MANY consider the game as the pinnacle of the franchise; gorgeous world diverse world, many new mechanics, and AWESOME soundtrack etc etc etc.

By the way, I like the fact that AC IV is an underdog, it might ended up as a huge surprise.

silvermercy

06-23-2013, 10:08 PM

If they stay true to their word and craft it as their words suggest with hAC4, they can make a universally enjoyable game.
It seems that way. At least in theory.

So basically, I think a game has better chances to be universally loved if it has "options". And of course different difficulty levels.

ArabianFrost

06-23-2013, 10:14 PM

It seems that way. At least in theory.

So basically, I think a game has better chances to be universally loved if it has "options". And of course different difficulty levels.

Not necessarily directly difficulty levels (as is the case with AC games), but different ways in the game to vary the difficulty according to game style.

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 10:23 PM

No!

AC2´s story was solid! And even though is not my favorite, I easily can understand why MANY consider the game as the pinnacle of the franchise; gorgeous world diverse world, many new mechanics, and AWESOME soundtrack etc etc etc.

By the way, I like the fact that AC IV is an underdog, it might ended up as a huge surprise.

The point being, you seemed to be claiming that the reason ACB is so highly rated is because so-called casuals have no taste in stories. Yet AC2 is the most popular game in the series so far, so obviously those same casuals (most of them anyway) appreciate AC2's story. You can't claim ACB is popular because casuals have no taste and then turn around and say they DO have good taste when they like AC2's story. How about simply admitting people like different things about different games and that you can't lump all casuals into one category?

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 10:30 PM

The happiest medium would be to have a game that offers enough challenge to hardcore players while also being enjoyable for casuals. Stealth and combat would be evenly balanced and there would be plenty of content to keep you coming back. Thus far no AC game has quite found that balance. Even AC2 which is generally the most praised entry in the series suffered from too easy combat and dumb-as-brick AI.

Theoretically finding the right balance doesn't seem like an impossible task, but in practice it's not that easy when the series has grown so large in scope. It's not as simple as saying "go back to AC1 formula" or "bring back Ezio" or "make it so hard it'll scare away the casuals". None of those options would make a perfect AC game.

Ahh... nice perspective Keys. I agree with this. This is actually one of the reasons I wish sometime the series would take a break. It would give them time to balance all this and come out with a truly amazing game. Even it was just an addition 6 mos. so 1.5 years for a release vs. every year. I know they get a ton accomplished since it is such a huge company now, but still it's thinks like this that make me think if there was some quality assurance it could be 10x better!

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 10:30 PM

and that you can't lump all casuals into one category?
PREACH DAMMIT...preach

Gi1t

06-23-2013, 10:31 PM

It is hard to define what a "casual or a "hardcore" likes!

To me "casuals" do not care a lot about the story, hence why ACB is the second better fan rated game in the franchise......

Well, people seem to either play games to get invested in them, or to get away from being invested in other things. Some people act like they don't want to play a game that tries to make them feel something, (maybe because they've got enough to deal with in their lives already.) Others find it boring when there's barely anything going on with the characters and the story is kept to a sort of minimum.

(To me, one of the defining aspects of whether a game features its story prominently or minimizes it is whether the game is just a lot of stuff happening, or has actual downtime where the characters get some space to process those emotions. In other words, is there time to 'stop and smell the roses'? )

Modern gamers are starting to become more mixed these days as far as casual or hardcore traits. Some people love a game's story (hardcore) but really don't want to have to deal with any tough gameplay challenges (casual). Some people hate having to pay attention to story details (casual) but they'll sit there all day and night trying to beat everything and get achievements/trophies (hardcore) and usually if you ask those people, they'll say the story of that game was good.

I personally really get into good stories, am very accepting of characters and I put effort into really learning the finer points of the gameplay, so I expect a lot from that too, but I don't like to invest a ton of TIME into things. I love a challenge ,but I don't like games requiring you to go a long time without saving progress in order to get to something (things like survival challenges or long dungeons that you have to do all at once to get to something cool at the bottom) or repeat a bunch of stuff you already did whenever you die.

I think if you really want to make something for as many people as possible, you inevitably have to offer players a choice. Anything you can do to make more options available should expand the number of people willing to play it.

Rugterwyper32

06-23-2013, 10:35 PM

I think a lot of the love for AC2 comes from it being the first game for many, many people and for many people who played the first game and didn't like it, it felt like the greatest sequel of all time material. It reeled in many players who just weren't interested in AC1 and impressed them. But it started dividing the fanbase with all the changes it brought in, which has become more and more noticeable as the series progresses.
From everything we know about AC4, it has potential to reach the middle between both and attract both sides of the fanbase, but it certainly won't please everyone. This fanbase isn't as much of a mess as the Sonic fanbase, but the division between the many sides of it will probably show with AC4: People who are pleased with this game being the "in-between", people who'd like it to go more one way, or people who'd like it to go more the other way. Wouldn't surprise me if that happens. It's simply not possible to please everyone.

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 10:43 PM

Modern gamers are starting to become more mixed these days as far as casual or hardcore traits. Some people love a game's story (hardcore) but really don't want to have to deal with any tough gameplay challenges (casual). Some people hate having to pay attention to story details (casual) but they'll sit there all day and night trying to beat everything and get achievements/trophies (hardcore) and usually if you ask those people, they'll say the story of that game was good.

I don't completely agree with this. It's true that gamers are becoming more mixed these days, but I still think the line between casual and hardcore isn't as simple as many people make it out to be. A casual gamer can also be someone who simply doesn't buy a crapton of games each year due to lack of time or limited interest.

In some sense, I consider myself a casual because I only buy 3-4 games a year. My purchase decisions depend on the price tag, reviews and how much the game appeals to me. The majority of games are still currently FPS games and I hate FPS (they give me a headache and I usually find them boring). That already limits my options to third-person games. I don't care about war games or most shooters, I'm more into action-adventure, horror and puzzling. That narrows down my options even more. The graphics and atmosphere need to catch my interest, which doesn't happen a lot. That limits my options further. And so on and so forth. I don't buy games just for bragging rights so I can say I'm hardcore. I buy only what looks interesting to me, and frankly most games currently on the market are garbage. I see no shame in limiting yourself to only a few quality games per year, even if it means you don't get to label yourself as a hardcore couch potato.

AssassinHMS

06-23-2013, 10:44 PM

AC 1 was the only game in the series that stayed true to its purpose: portrait the conflit between templars and assassins while allowing the player to put himself in the shoes of an actual assassin. However it was a little repetitive and ultimately many people found it boring. So, Ubisoft, eager for money, didn't even try to stay true to the assassin's creed idea and removed everything labeled boring. Instead of trying to change the layout of those missions (pickpocket, eavsdropping and interrogating), the devs removed them completely. They went the easy route and made a game where players weren't allowed to plan missions or to do any of the activities a real assassin did (because they were "boring"). In replacement, the devs added action packed missions that were both diverse and appealing just for the sake of being fun (even if unrealistic or out of place).
Each new instalment relied more on action stunts and combat and less on stealth or anything related with being an assassin. Each game introduces new features that overshadow the franchise itself.

Ubisoft chose to give up on assassin's creed and on their older fans in order to attract everyone else and increase the sales. It's impossible to please everyone but if Ubisoft want to keep the franchise alive, they need to win back the older fanbase.

So, in my opinion, the assassin's creed game that would please most people would have to respect the franchise's original ideas while presenting them in a fun and interesting way. It should be a simple game where the focus is stealth. No need for a huge open world as long as every section of the map is distinct and diversified. While free-roaming, the player can eavesdrop, pickpocket and interogate people in order to gain access to assassination missions (that were previously locked). Stealth should be encouraged and assassination missions should be much harder for those who rely on combat. Random events are a must. Naval gameplay isn't required and shouldn't be missed. The people that "live" in the world should interact with the assassin and provide side missions. Most buildings in the world would be explorable and filled with information about the people who live there, about conspiracies/mysteries (that would trigger side missions) and with loot that the player can take. Shops could take another form where each one would have a hidden section exclusive to assassins. The player could buy special garments, that would conceal weapons and equipment, from tailors (gloves to hide the hidden blade; a cane to conceal a sword...); smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
So, the key is to make the job of an assassin interesting and fun without replacing it with naval battles or linear action packed missions, while telling the story of assassins vs templars and creating a beautiful, interactible world with a good atmosphere. And I think most people would be pleased.

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 10:54 PM

AC 1 was the only game in the series that stayed true to its purpose: portrait the conflit between templars and assassins while allowing the player to put himself in the shoes of an actual assassin. However it was a little repetitive and ultimately many people found it boring. So, Ubisoft, eager for money, didn't even try to stay true to the assassin's creed idea and removed everything labeled boring. Instead of trying to change the layout of those missions (pickpocket, eavsdropping and interrogating), the devs removed them completely. They went the easy route and made a game where players weren't allowed to plan missions or to do any of the activities a real assassin did (because they were "boring"). In replacement, the devs added action packed missions that were both diverse and appealing just for the sake of being fun (even if unrealistic or out of place).
Each new instalment relied more on action stunts and combat and less on stealth or anything related with being an assassin. Each game introduces new features that overshadow the franchise itself.

Ubisoft chose to give up on assassin's creed and on their older fans in order to attract everyone else and increase the sales. It's impossible to please everyone but if Ubisoft want to keep the franchise alive, they need to win back the older fanbase.

So, in my opinion, the assassin's creed game that would please most people would have to respect the franchise's original ideas while presenting them in a fun and interesting way. It should be a simple game where the focus is stealth. No need for a huge open world as long as every section of the map is distinct and diversified. While free-roaming, the player can eavesdrop, pickpocket and interogate people in order to gain access to assassination missions (that were previously locked). Stealth should be encouraged and assassination missions should be much harder for those who rely on combat. Random events are a must. Naval gameplay isn't required and shouldn't be missed. The people that "live" in the world should interact with the assassin and provide side missions. Most buildings in the world would be explorable and filled with information about the people who live there, about conspiracies/mysteries (that would trigger side missions) and with loot that the player can take. Shops could take another form where each one would have a hidden section exclusive to assassins. The player could buy special garments, that would conceal weapons and equipment, from tailors (gloves to hide the hidden blade; a cane to conceal a sword...); smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
So, the key is to make the job of an assassin interesting and fun without replacing it with naval battles or linear action packed missions, while telling the story of assassins vs templars and creating a beautiful, interactible world with a good atmosphere. And I think most people would be pleased.
'Appealing to a wider audience' they call it. Phah, what a load of ****e

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 11:00 PM

I honestly think we are having a bit of an assassin v. templar battle here were the lines are starting to blur a little bit. Casual gamers are technically suppose to be your people that play mobile games, and facebook games.

I think If you use a game for entertainment, then technically, you’re a gamer. I’m not sure why we need to define casual gamers as so different from hardcore gamers. If the game is interesting enough to them, they will also play for hours on end! Also what about the people who are hardcore gamers but just don’t have enough time to play as much as they like? Would they become casual hardcore gamers? Are those others hardcore casual gamers?

So what exactly is a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer?

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:04 PM

So what exactly is a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer?
Simplest definition which is kinda incorrect but whatever...

H.Gamer=People who are invested into games as a culture and some even further than that - as a lifestyle

Casual=People who plays games.

Gi1t

06-23-2013, 11:05 PM

I don't completely agree with this. It's true that gamers are becoming more mixed these days, but I still think the line between casual and hardcore isn't as simple as many people make it out to be. A casual gamer can also be someone who simply doesn't buy a crapton of games each year due to lack of time or limited interest.

In some sense, I consider myself a casual because I only buy 3-4 games a year. My purchase decisions depend on the price tag, reviews and how much the game appeals to me. The majority of games are still currently FPS games and I hate FPS (they give me a headache and I usually find them boring). That already limits my options to third-person games. I don't care about war games or most shooters, I'm more into action-adventure, horror and puzzling. That narrows down my options even more. The graphics and atmosphere need to catch my interest, which doesn't happen a lot. That limits my options further. And so on and so forth. I don't buy games just for bragging rights so I can say I'm hardcore. I buy only what looks interesting to me, and frankly most games currently on the market are garbage. I see no shame in limiting yourself to only a few quality games per year, even if it means you don't get to label yourself as a hardcore couch potato.

Well, I don't buy any more games a year than you do, but I still consider myself more of a hardcore gamer than a casual one because I really develop an interest in those games, games in general (I have a lot of games I really like that I've never owned) and I really have an interest in games as an art form overall. I didn't say anything about the line being simple. It's quite varied and what you mentioned is yet another trait that a person can define themselves by as a gamer. What I'm saying is that people these days have traits that casual gamers share and traits that are more associated with hardcore gamers. As divided as people may seem on forums over casual v. hardcore aspects in games, they aren't rigidly divided into one or the other, but tend to have their own mix of traits which they categorize as being more to one side or the other. :)

silvermercy

06-23-2013, 11:10 PM

So what exactly is a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer?
This is indeed very difficult to define. for example, I have a great interest in games and I would play very frequently, but I also feel the good games that come out lately and interest me are very few. So I am limited because of game quality and time. So am I a hardcore? A hardcore casual? Or a casual hardcore? lol

I also found this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Types_of_gamersr

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 11:13 PM

This is indeed very difficult to define. for example, I have a great interest in games and I would play very frequently, but I also feel the good games that come out lately and interest me are very few. So I am limited because of game quality and time. So am I a hardcore? A hardcore casual? Or a casual hardcore? lol

I also found this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Types_of_gamersr
Gaymer and Girl gamer.......Dafuq..

Alright then, should we make....Straighmer and Boy gamer?? -_-

AssassinHMS

06-23-2013, 11:16 PM

'Appealing to a wider audience' they call it. Phah, what a load of ****e

Indeed. What a waste of a franchise...Just imagine how awesome AC could be if Ubisoft hadn't given up on it.

So what exactly is a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer?

Good question. Casual gamers play games (such as AC) casually or, in other words, to have some fun. Don't get me wrong though, hardcore gamers also play games for the fun of it, however casual gamers don't care about the actual franchise. If a franchise changes drastically to the point where everything it used to stand for is gone, for the sake of being more fun or presenting a lighter experience that doesn't require brain activity, casual gamers will probably notice the change but will consider it an improvement while hardcore gamers that really apreciate the game for what it used to be and don't want to see it gone replaced by mindless action or big explosions will complain and ask for the real thing.

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 11:19 PM

Good question. Casual gamers play games (such as AC) casually or, in other words, to have some fun. Don't get me wrong though, hardcore gamers also play games for the fun of it, however casual gamers don't care about the actual franchise. If a franchise changes drastically to the point where everything it used to stand for is gone, for the sake of being more fun or presenting a lighter experience that doesn't require brain activity, casual gamers will probably notice the change but will consider it an improvement while hardcore gamers that really apreciate the game for what it used to be and don't want to see it gone replaced by mindless action or big explosions will complain and ask for the real thing.
You try so hard...SO hard not to make casual gamers come over as....idiots, but you fail miserably....and no, that description does not entail ALL casual gamers...

silvermercy

06-23-2013, 11:22 PM

Gaymer and Girl gamer.......Dafuq..

Alright then, should we make....Straighmer and Boy gamer?? -_-
Yeah I was rolling my eyes at that, too... I don't identify myself as a Girl-gamer and if I was gay I would not call myself Gaymer! I mean... lulz? Wot?

Megas_Doux

06-23-2013, 11:23 PM

; smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
.

I agree with everything you said but that, Assassins are supposed to be a "secret" organization :P Although everyone knows about AC2/ACB Ezio hehe.

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 11:25 PM

Simplest definition which is kinda incorrect but whatever...

H.Gamer=People who are invested into games as a culture and some even further than that - as a lifestyle

Casual=People who plays games.

I can't really agree with this definition either. I know very few people who would admit to being invested in games as a lifestyle, even though they play five times more games than I do. I'm interested in gaming culture mostly from a sociological perspective, so I don't know where that puts me on your scale. I'm intrigued by how far games have evolved and how far we can still take the medium, but I can't invest myself in it completely because I recognize so many problems within the gaming culture as a whole. I'm more into movies than games in the sense that I watch a lot of them and enjoy discussing them, but I still wouldn't call it a lifestyle. Only film critics and filmmakers can really claim it as a lifestyle. Everyone else is just "people who watch movies". I think your definition is far too simplistic.

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 11:25 PM

Gaymer and Girl gamer.......Dafuq..

Alright then, should we make....Straighmer and Boy gamer?? -_-

Bwahaha... Right! Whew. That for some reason is hilarious. Gaymer I never would have guessed was a real term people were throwing around.

as far as that list I see where it was going. I would fall inbtween mid-core and hard core. I've competed before in like a guitar hero , and a smash brothers, and soul calibur tournaments. Also, I would love to go to pax. But also I finish every game I buy. That's just weird. Umm. But I don't have time for MMO's... I like to play it's just too much and I get bored after so long I guess.

#maplestory

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:29 PM

I know very few people who would admit to being invested in games as a lifestyle

and some even further than that - as a lifestyle
That and as stated it's incorrect but it gives you a general idea of what is being talked about...atleast it does to me.

STDlyMcStudpants

06-23-2013, 11:31 PM

No, there will always be negative people that hate everything..must be new to the forum ;D

AssassinHMS

06-23-2013, 11:32 PM

You try so hard...SO hard not to make casual gamers come over as....idiots, but you fail miserably....

If you say so.

and no, that description does not entail ALL casual gamers...

There are always exceptions. Nothing in life is that linear, well, except for AC3.

I agree with everything you said but that, Assassins are supposed to be a "secret" organization :P Although everyone knows about AC2/ACB Ezio hehe.

You're right. Maybe the player could do that in the assassin's hideout...

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:33 PM

I will eat whatever crap is thrown at me
http://www.simplystamps.com/Images/ftfy-stamp.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

Oh and, I'll just post my series reaction so far

http://i.minus.com/ixm14eJnwvAUU.jpg

SixKeys

06-23-2013, 11:34 PM

That and as stated it's incorrect but it gives you a general idea of what is being talked about...atleast it does to me.

How would you classify people who hang out on gaming forums like this one? They're obviously invested enough to talk about games they love and probably interested in talking about things like next-gen news and E3, but does that automatically make them hardcore? Just how invested does one need to be in gaming culture in order to be considered hardcore?

poptartz20

06-23-2013, 11:36 PM

So, in my opinion, the assassin's creed game that would please most people would have to respect the franchise's original ideas while presenting them in a fun and interesting way. It should be a simple game where the focus is stealth. No need for a huge open world as long as every section of the map is distinct and diversified. While free-roaming, the player can eavesdrop, pickpocket and interogate people in order to gain access to assassination missions (that were previously locked). Stealth should be encouraged and assassination missions should be much harder for those who rely on combat. Random events are a must. Naval gameplay isn't required and shouldn't be missed. The people that "live" in the world should interact with the assassin and provide side missions. Most buildings in the world would be explorable and filled with information about the people who live there, about conspiracies/mysteries (that would trigger side missions) and with loot that the player can take. Shops could take another form where each one would have a hidden section exclusive to assassins. The player could buy special garments, that would conceal weapons and equipment, from tailors (gloves to hide the hidden blade; a cane to conceal a sword...); smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
So, the key is to make the job of an assassin interesting and fun without replacing it with naval battles or linear action packed missions, while telling the story of assassins vs templars and creating a beautiful, interactible world with a good atmosphere. And I think most people would be pleased.

I really like some of your ideas here! I love the idea that while in free roam you can eavesdrop on people and pick-pocket to open up a new assassination that was locked! Stealth and combat should be balanced though. A new hidden blade also would be very welcome. Considering the fact that Edward apparently had a cane with a sword in it in Forsaken.

Not sure what you mean by different blade for different kills. I mean it's a hidden blade to kill people by stabbing. How fancy does it get?

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:38 PM

How would you classify people who hang out on gaming forums like this one? They're obviously invested enough to talk about games they love and probably interested in talking about things like next-gen news and E3, but does that automatically make them hardcore? Just how invested does one need to be in gaming culture in order to be considered hardcore?
Depends, do they care about just the games they liked and possible future about it or gaming(as an industry)?

It's really hard to define either case, it's more....idk how to describe...something that comes to you with experience.

ze_topazio

06-23-2013, 11:46 PM

Casual gamers are people that occasionally play simple games, not a sandbox game like AC and I'm sure most "hardcore" gamers put gameplay above story.

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:49 PM

Casual gamers are people that occasionally play simple games, not a sandbox game like AC and I'm sure most "hardcore" gamers put gameplay above story.
I hope you're not implying that AC is not casual by saying that.

Assassin_M

06-23-2013, 11:51 PM

Casual gamers are people that occasionally play simple games, not a sandbox game like AC and I'm sure most "hardcore" gamers put gameplay above story.
not necessarily true, like I said, I know casual gamers who skip all the cutscenes and just go for gameplay...and they don`t mind not knowing what the hell is going on..

ArabianFrost

06-23-2013, 11:53 PM

I hope you're not implying that AC is not casual by saying that.

Maybe not as hardcore as The Witcher 2, god damn it, but it's not a casual game, like COD.

dxsxhxcx

06-23-2013, 11:55 PM

AC 1 was the only game in the series that stayed true to its purpose: portrait the conflit between templars and assassins while allowing the player to put himself in the shoes of an actual assassin. However it was a little repetitive and ultimately many people found it boring. So, Ubisoft, eager for money, didn't even try to stay true to the assassin's creed idea and removed everything labeled boring. Instead of trying to change the layout of those missions (pickpocket, eavsdropping and interrogating), the devs removed them completely. They went the easy route and made a game where players weren't allowed to plan missions or to do any of the activities a real assassin did (because they were "boring"). In replacement, the devs added action packed missions that were both diverse and appealing just for the sake of being fun (even if unrealistic or out of place).
Each new instalment relied more on action stunts and combat and less on stealth or anything related with being an assassin. Each game introduces new features that overshadow the franchise itself.

Ubisoft chose to give up on assassin's creed and on their older fans in order to attract everyone else and increase the sales. It's impossible to please everyone but if Ubisoft want to keep the franchise alive, they need to win back the older fanbase.

So, in my opinion, the assassin's creed game that would please most people would have to respect the franchise's original ideas while presenting them in a fun and interesting way. It should be a simple game where the focus is stealth. No need for a huge open world as long as every section of the map is distinct and diversified. While free-roaming, the player can eavesdrop, pickpocket and interogate people in order to gain access to assassination missions (that were previously locked). Stealth should be encouraged and assassination missions should be much harder for those who rely on combat. Random events are a must. Naval gameplay isn't required and shouldn't be missed. The people that "live" in the world should interact with the assassin and provide side missions. Most buildings in the world would be explorable and filled with information about the people who live there, about conspiracies/mysteries (that would trigger side missions) and with loot that the player can take. Shops could take another form where each one would have a hidden section exclusive to assassins. The player could buy special garments, that would conceal weapons and equipment, from tailors (gloves to hide the hidden blade; a cane to conceal a sword...); smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
So, the key is to make the job of an assassin interesting and fun without replacing it with naval battles or linear action packed missions, while telling the story of assassins vs templars and creating a beautiful, interactible world with a good atmosphere. And I think most people would be pleased.

great ideas, IMO investigations could return and play a role in side missions, it would be nice to play the detective like we do in Batman Arkham City in that Deadshot mission (Shot in the Dark), optional investigations in the main missions could give us more info about the target and help with the targets' character development, they could also give us access to different routes only available when the investigations are done (especially in closed areas), this wouldn't change the mission outcome but it could add replay value...

ProletariatPleb

06-23-2013, 11:59 PM

Maybe not as hardcore as The Witcher 2, god damn it, but it's not a casual game, like COD.
You haven't even tried Dark mode yet :p

But seriously it is casual, requires little to no skill to progress, easiest thing on the planet seriously even CoD is harder on the highest difficulty, story has gone from complex intriguing conspiracy filled plotline that required you to use your head with other elements like glyphs and puzzles and multiple 'timelines' to keep in mind - modern, ancestor's, first civ all if which had mystery stuff to simpleton tier.

Gi1t

06-24-2013, 12:00 AM

Depends, do they care about just the games they liked and possible future about it or gaming(as an industry)?

It's really hard to define either case, it's more....idk how to describe...something that comes to you with experience.

I think your statement about being invested in the culture is a good way to look at it. :) It really seems to come down to whether a person feels they are a hardcore gamer or not. How do they see themselves as interacting with gamer culture? Do they feel like they're on the outside looking in or do they think of themselves as a part of the culture as a whole? SixKeys and I seem to share similar gaming habits yet I define myself as harcore where Sixkeys appears not to. That really seems to be the ultimate distinction, and it makes things complicated because everyone looks at other forum member through their own definition of casual/hardcore which has a profound effect on interaction as anyone can tell from reading your sig. :D

ArabianFrost

06-24-2013, 12:08 AM

You haven't even tried Dark mode yet :p

But seriously it is casual, requires little to no skill to progress, easiest thing on the planet seriously even CoD is harder on the highest difficulty, story has gone from complex intriguing conspiracy filled plotline that required you to use your head with other elements like glyphs and puzzles and multiple 'timelines' to keep in mind - modern, ancestor's, first civ all if which had mystery stuff to simpleton tier.

Fine. Maybe the last couple of games were, but not the series as a whole is not relatively casual . AC4 will change this though and you know it.

ProletariatPleb

06-24-2013, 12:09 AM

I think your statement about being invested in the culture is a good way to look at it. :) It really seems to come down to whether a person feels they are a hardcore gamer or not. How do they see themselves as interacting with gamer culture? Do they feel like they're on the outside looking in or do they think of themselves as a part of the culture as a whole? SixKeys and I seem to share similar gaming habits yet I define myself as harcore where Sixkeys appears not to. That really seems to be the ultimate distinction, and it makes things complicated because everyone looks at other forum member through their own definition of casual/hardcore which has a profound effect on interaction as anyone can tell from reading your sig. :D
That's the only way I could define it really, lol really hard to explain it. Culture was the only way to describe it, like how there are people who watch movies and there are people whose are invested into the movie industry - different techniques used, different depictions, different storytelling methods, how the movie came to be and what was edited out and how it could've impacted the industry, what upcoming technology could revolutionise movie direction forever they care about all of it, same applies could possibly apply to TV shows.

And about the sig...that's mostly because I'm an elitist ***** :p

AssassinHMS

06-24-2013, 12:13 AM

Not sure what you mean by different blade for different kills. I mean it's a hidden blade to kill people by stabbing. How fancy does it get?

Well I was thinking about special designs that would allow for different effects. For example a double edged blade that has a mechanism the assassin can use to move the blades horizontally and slowly (or quickly if so desired) slice the opponent's neck (which could be useful in interrogation missions to force the enemy to talk). It's not as wierd as it sounds, believe me, it is hard to explain the mecanism. Of course there would be variations that work more or less the same way (such as prowler's hidden blade).

great ideas, IMO investigations could return and play a role in side missions, it would be nice to play the detective like we do in Batman Arkham City in that Deadshot mission (Shot in the Dark), optional investigations in the main missions could give us more info about the target and help with the targets' character development, they could also give us access to different routes only available when the investigations are done (especially in closed areas), this wouldn't change the mission outcome but it could add replay value...

Exactly! Assassin's creed has a lot of potencial on its own and there is no need to resort to naval battles or hunting to refresh the series. It's a shame Ubisoft doesn't see it.

poptartz20

06-24-2013, 12:14 AM

not necessarily true, like I said, I know casual gamers who skip all the cutscenes and just go for gameplay...and they don`t mind not knowing what the hell is going on..

How in the HELL, do you play like that!? You might as well go get a super nintendo and play a mario game. No story major there.

Assassin_M

06-24-2013, 12:19 AM

How in the HELL, do you play like that!? You might as well go get a super nintendo and play a mario game. No story major there.
I know, but there are other casual gamers who focus on the story and gameplay, others just on story...it`s not just "ohmagodz casualzz only focuth ona ztory and zats why zey are estupeeed"

Rugterwyper32

06-24-2013, 12:48 AM

AC 1 was the only game in the series that stayed true to its purpose: portrait the conflit between templars and assassins while allowing the player to put himself in the shoes of an actual assassin. However it was a little repetitive and ultimately many people found it boring. So, Ubisoft, eager for money, didn't even try to stay true to the assassin's creed idea and removed everything labeled boring. Instead of trying to change the layout of those missions (pickpocket, eavsdropping and interrogating), the devs removed them completely. They went the easy route and made a game where players weren't allowed to plan missions or to do any of the activities a real assassin did (because they were "boring"). In replacement, the devs added action packed missions that were both diverse and appealing just for the sake of being fun (even if unrealistic or out of place).
Each new instalment relied more on action stunts and combat and less on stealth or anything related with being an assassin. Each game introduces new features that overshadow the franchise itself.

Ubisoft chose to give up on assassin's creed and on their older fans in order to attract everyone else and increase the sales. It's impossible to please everyone but if Ubisoft want to keep the franchise alive, they need to win back the older fanbase.

So, in my opinion, the assassin's creed game that would please most people would have to respect the franchise's original ideas while presenting them in a fun and interesting way. It should be a simple game where the focus is stealth. No need for a huge open world as long as every section of the map is distinct and diversified. While free-roaming, the player can eavesdrop, pickpocket and interogate people in order to gain access to assassination missions (that were previously locked). Stealth should be encouraged and assassination missions should be much harder for those who rely on combat. Random events are a must. Naval gameplay isn't required and shouldn't be missed. The people that "live" in the world should interact with the assassin and provide side missions. Most buildings in the world would be explorable and filled with information about the people who live there, about conspiracies/mysteries (that would trigger side missions) and with loot that the player can take. Shops could take another form where each one would have a hidden section exclusive to assassins. The player could buy special garments, that would conceal weapons and equipment, from tailors (gloves to hide the hidden blade; a cane to conceal a sword...); smiths would sell different hidden blade designs that allowed for different types of kills...
So, the key is to make the job of an assassin interesting and fun without replacing it with naval battles or linear action packed missions, while telling the story of assassins vs templars and creating a beautiful, interactible world with a good atmosphere. And I think most people would be pleased.

My take on this, starting with the stuff I agree on:
I agree with a lot. The idea for assassination missions, for instance, is quite intriguing, maybe that could be a twist on the 60 templars from AC1, and a world that is more alive is certainly something I'd like.
While I don't think most buildings should be explorable (I don't think it would be subtle if an assassin just randomly barged into people's houses), I think public buildings should be explorable. One thing I liked from ACR was how Sofia's shop had a secret location in it. I think secret locations shouldn't be exactly marked, but left for you to find. Maybe find a puzzle inside a church that is relevant to the conspiracies/mysteries or things like that which would add to the intrigue while bringing interesting platforming challenges that have become a staple of the series, and in the case of other buildings more side missions to be done of other kinds. AC2 also had this one mission where Ezio overheard the Templars talk about their plans, maybe have secret locations in which you find out stuff like that and give you new targets.
Yes, social stealth should be encouraged more and combat less. The assassin should be careful blending in with the rest of the population and not standing out while doing stuff. AC1's oppressive atmosphere helped with that a lot during that game. When you heard a group of guards, you would usually walk slowly and try not to make a mess by dropping a planter or making someone drop what they were carrying. Some more classic stealth should also apply in restricted areas, I'm thinking, as you don't really have much in terms of blending in.
And the idea of shops is intriguing, but there's a little part I disagree with, which I'll cover later.

Now for what I disagree on.
Naval gameplay is something that I disagree on. I very much like in the series, but I believe it should only be used when the setting calls for it. It opens new ways for navigation, and I'd ask you to not come up with an argument that "it's not stealthy" because an assassin riding at high speed on a horse coming from the fortress that is obviously the assassin fortress isn't exactly the most stealthy thing either. Though I'll say, the ship, if used, should be one that has a certain degree of subtlety: A cargo ship, for instance, which would cover up the assassin's true allegiance. If used, make it be the "public persona", to put it one way. But don't just add it in a way that feels meaningless, like AC3 did in which it felt it was more in "because action". Assassins shouldn't be just that, in my opinion, that worked for AC1 but beyond that they should have something that covers up what they really are, and if naval works in its favor for good reason, I'm all for it.
The world. One of the main attractions of the series (why I got into AC1, for instance) is the big open worlds that represent a great recreation of the historical setting. Sure, they shouldn't be overbearingly huge with many areas that you have no reason to visit (While I love the frontier, it was guilty of having tons of areas which you had no reason to go to at all), but they should be big enough to work as a good recreation that gives you freedom to explore. And I doubt I'm the only one here who came into the series mainly because of the setting. In fact, when I got AC1, I saw it more as an action game in a historical setting, the stealth part came into play during the merchant king assassination which I actually started planning out, and admittedly the stealth isn't what kept me in (though I'll agree it could do with some big improvements).
And finally the shops. In a way, I don't think shops should be in cities and the such. Sure, you could see them, but I think that shops you could use should be in the hideout area. Shops that actually give you stuff you need, like the things you mentioned in the post. The idea is still great, though. What you mention helps the idea of the assassin building a public persona while still being an assassin and doing stuff the "assassin way", to put it one way.

dxsxhxcx

06-24-2013, 01:37 AM

IMO other things that could make a return are the Bureaus and the presence of a strong leader like Al Mualim giving orders, since ACB the feeling of being part of an Assassin Order is losing strength because they're giving too much power/importance to the main character, even if it was Altair who did the all the hard job in AC1, I could see that Order working without him, now IMO this is impossible, Ezio and Connor were just too important to the Order during their time to not be there to make it work, if once we (as the main character) were just a cog in the machinery, now we are the machinery..

ProletariatPleb

06-24-2013, 01:40 AM

IMO other things that could make a return are the Bureaus and the presence of a strong leader like Al Mualim, since ACB the feeling of being part of an Assassin Order is losing strenght because they're giving too much power/importance to the main character, even if it was Altair who did the all the hard job in AC1, I could see that Order working without him, now IMO this is impossible, Ezio and Connor were just too important to the Order during their time to not be there to make it work, if once we (as the main character) were just a cog in the machinery, now we are the machinery..
This, instead of making us the most powerful thing ever bound by nothing they should make it seems as if we're just a PART of the world, it flows even without us interrupting.

Rugterwyper32

06-24-2013, 02:05 AM

IMO other things that could make a return are the Bureaus and the presence of a strong leader like Al Mualim giving orders, since ACB the feeling of being part of an Assassin Order is losing strength because they're giving too much power/importance to the main character, even if it was Altair who did the all the hard job in AC1, I could see that Order working without him, now IMO this is impossible, Ezio and Connor were just too important to the Order during their time to not be there to make it work, if once we (as the main character) were just a cog in the machinery, now we are the machinery..

I actually agree with this too. Admittedly, it started in AC2 with Ezio feeling like a "chosen one" who was the reason everything could fall into place for the Brotherhood (and then basically becoming a one man army who was the reason there was a Brotherhood at all) and then that happened in AC3 but with an added gump factor.
Another thing I thought would help: Make the historical setting more of a proper backdrop and try to take down the gump factor as much as possible, and focus on the part that was "what really happened is not what history books tell you" of the games. AC1 did that in an amazing way. It had historical figures which died at a different date and/or place (You kill Garnier a year before he actually did as he actually fought alongside Richard and Robert in Arsuf, William was actually a lot older by the time he died, no one knows when Sibrand actually died, Robert actually died in 1193), you have targets inspired in actual historical figures (Majd Addin, Jubair al Hakim, ) and a bunch of fictional targets. Rashid ad-Did Sinan (Al Mualim) is the only accurate in terms of date of death besides William de Montferrat, the only difference is that they actually made William look a lot younger. Actually scratch that, Rashid actually died in Al-Kafh castle so there's another innacuracy. Hey.

Gi1t

06-24-2013, 02:14 AM

This, instead of making us the most powerful thing ever bound by nothing they should make it seems as if we're just a PART of the world, it flows even without us interrupting.

Agreed. It's getting to be like Elder Scrolls where you end up somehow being the beginning and the end of everything in the game. Master of every faction, even the ones that hate each other and the faithful 'champion' of every ******* deity in the game (again, including the ones that hate each other. XD )

ProletariatPleb

06-24-2013, 02:19 AM

Agreed. It's getting to be like Elder Scrolls where you end up somehow being the beginning and the end of everything in the game. Master of every faction, even the ones that hate each other and the faithful 'champion' of every ******* deity in the game (again, including the ones that hate each other. XD )
Hah yeh, speaking of which...TES needs to step its game up as does Creed.

dxsxhxcx

06-24-2013, 03:02 AM

This, instead of making us the most powerful thing ever bound by nothing they should make it seems as if we're just a PART of the world, it flows even without us interrupting.

once I even tought in a feature involving the Bureaus called the Bureau System (the name isn't very original, I know.. lol) that would work this way:

- the game would take place in a setting where the Assassin Order doesn't have much influence and that's why we would need to create one Bureau in each city, to expand our influence;

- the Assassins would have a central hideout in a unique area (similar to Masyaf) where the Mentor and other assassins will stay;

- this system would be introduced at the beginning of the game (after the prologue) by the Mentor of the Order;

- when the bureau mission is triggered, we would be able to choose between 4 or 5 places to place the Assassin Bureau, to build the first one we will receive all the money we need from the Mentor (for tutorial purposes), the others will have a cost to be built;

- once the Bureau is built, this system would work in a similar way as the Assassins Dens in ACR (but without den defense), our actions would give away the location of the bureau to the Templars, if we draw too much attention our Bureau will be attacked and destroyed (maybe at a certain point this could trigger an event where we would need to find the Templar who knows the location of our bureau and kill him before he reach the other Templars to keep our bureau safe);

- some of the benefits of building a Bureau are:

all Assasination contracts will be triggered from there;
the Bureau would be hidden behind a shop that would sell us items for a cheaper price;
the presence of Templar agents (that would be the most powerful archetype in this game) will decrease;
special missions involving other master assassins that would ask for our help would be available here (but in these missions similar to the Assassination contracts we would only give assistance to the othe master assassins, they would finish the target)
some side missions (basicaly Assassination contracts) where we will be able to use recruits will become available;

- once a bureau is destroyed, the mission to build a new bureau will be available again, we will be able to choose one of the other areas still left to place the Bureau (IMO it wouldn't make sense build the Bureau in the same place since the Templars already know its location), this of course will cost us money again;

now here is where things become complicated

- (unless the devs can create infinite locations to build the bureau once one is destroyed) if all the locations available to build a bureau are destroyed, the benefits mentioned above (without count the third whose side effect will be an increase of these soldiers in the cities without a bureau) would be available from the main hideout, while this may be a solution to continue making those missions available, it can become a tedious exercise return to the main hideout everytime we want to do a new assassination contract;

- a solution for the problem above could be once all the Bureau locations left are destroyed, the game will place those pigeon cages across the city, we would be able to trigger the Assassination side missions from there but the benefits 2 and 3 wouldn't be available;

I actually agree with this too. Admittedly, it started in AC2 with Ezio feeling like a "chosen one" who was the reason everything could fall into place for the Brotherhood (and then basically becoming a one man army who was the reason there was a Brotherhood at all)

I didn't mentioned AC2 because IMO there is nothing wrong with this kind of plot, but now they're kinda overdoing it, IMO it makes more sense the protagonist be PART of the Order in most games than be THE Order, the "chosen one" like you said that'll appear in the right place at the right time and "miraculously" fix everything.

Rugterwyper32

06-24-2013, 03:15 AM

-snip-

Sorry for cutting that out, it's just a rather long post. But anyway.
I actually like your idea here. How about this? For tutorial purposes, the mentor asks you to help him out setting up a bureau in the hideout location as he suspects something going down and he needs something set up that is far away enough so it doesn't raise suspicion or something.
As for bureaus being destroyed, how about getting a mission where you have to find and kill a few "Templar eyes" (let's call them that for all intents and purposes) checking for assassin activity in the area, and then kill their leader and burn a map of assassin activity around the city or something? I think that idea could work, maybe.

dxsxhxcx

06-24-2013, 03:32 AM

Sorry for cutting that out, it's just a rather long post. But anyway.
I actually like your idea here. How about this? For tutorial purposes, the mentor asks you to help him out setting up a bureau in the hideout location as he suspects something going down and he needs something set up that is far away enough so it doesn't raise suspicion or something.
As for bureaus being destroyed, how about getting a mission where you have to find and kill a few "Templar eyes" (let's call them that for all intents and purposes) checking for assassin activity in the area, and then kill their leader and burn a map of assassin activity around the city or something? I think that idea could work, maybe.

that's a good solution that could make the mission have more meaning and still keep it simple that I think it would be easy to implement, since this is something that can happen often, I think these missions should work in a similar way as those assassination contracts where we have a green area where we'll need to use our eagle vision to find the targets, it shouldn't be a mission too complicated because it would take too much time and work to implement, it's something that IMO doesn't even needs to have long cutscenes, just find the targets, kill them and burn the map...

but what you're suggesting would also make this a scenario where is impossible to fail, maybe we could have a certain time to find and kill all the (or the right) targets, if we don't find the right target the Bureau will be destroyed, in the end we'll still have the problem of what to do after all the bureaus are destroyed but I think the sense of danger to fail at this mission and lose some benefits should exist to make things interesting, but your idea certainly made this mission looks cooler...

poptartz20

06-24-2013, 02:22 PM

I could see something like a bureau, but its not something that could fit in any game. Like I try to imagine and assassin pirate going and and trying to report to a bureau. Haha. He could do it I guess but it seems a little off. I could imagine something like this if they were to move the game to a place like China/Japan or Russia since these were well established places with a ton of places to hide a headquarters in secret. because of the mountainous and snowy regions.

SixKeys

06-24-2013, 05:15 PM

It would be awesome if instead of having one customizable hideout, we could customize several bureaus with items found on our travels. That way each bureau would be unique. Of course, that would eliminate the possibility of them getting destroyed or taken over by Templars as it would suck for the player to lose access to all their trophies.

Anthropoid3

06-24-2013, 05:47 PM

It's impossible to make a game that pleases (almost) everyone. However, I think you can get close. Maybe with a (open world) game that allows both Third an First Person, that has multiple styles of playing (sneaky, shoot-everyone-you-see, etc) with advanced mechanics and a lot of (optional) side stuff, with a nice storyline.
Such a game will take a lot of development time (think of ESO, or GTA V - both are already five years in development). I don't think Ubi will make a game like that, they don't really want to put a lot of time in a single game, I think.:(

Of course some people will like simplicity more than exuberance, and other people don't like open world. :nonchalance:As said before, it's impossible to make everyone happy.

Rugterwyper32

06-24-2013, 05:53 PM

that's a good solution that could make the mission have more meaning and still keep it simple that I think it would be easy to implement, since this is something that can happen often, I think these missions should work in a similar way as those assassination contracts where we have a green area where we'll need to use our eagle vision to find the targets, it shouldn't be a mission too complicated because it would take too much time and work to implement, it's something that IMO doesn't even needs to have long cutscenes, just find the targets, kill them and burn the map...

but what you're suggesting would also make this a scenario where is impossible to fail, maybe we could have a certain time to find and kill all the (or the right) targets, if we don't find the right target the Bureau will be destroyed, in the end we'll still have the problem of what to do after all the bureaus are destroyed but I think the sense of danger to fail at this mission and lose some benefits should exist to make things interesting, but your idea certainly made this mission looks cooler...

I think that while losing the hideout completely would prove more frustrating to the player than anything without a chance to recover it, it could be done so with each time you cause that mission to happen you'd get punished for it without losing the hideout. I'm thinking in 3 steps:

1) First time, you lose all discounts from the bureau shop. The shopkeeper could be an independent who is under assassins protection, so he'd constantly remind you of the scare he got and how you're supposed to keep him/her safe according to the arrangement done.

2) Templars would take advantage of that to slander your name and make other shops in the zone either close their doors to you or increase prices as they won't like being connected to a troublemaker. There'd also be guard patrols around looking for you.

3) The bureau shopkeeper would not let you buy stuff from him/her, guards would be more aggressive overall, there'd be certain people who would be marked differently in eagle vision who can recognize you and point at you breaking your blending and sending guards towards you.

I'm thinking it could be possible to go back to #2 by doing certain missions that would show up when you reach #3, but it'd be rather challenging and you couldn't go lower than that, making your mistakes punishing but letting you still recover your hideout. And since I'm thinking along the lines of combat being more challenging, then there'd be an actual sense of danger and not wanting to make mistakes to get to that point.

Jexx21

06-24-2013, 06:04 PM

I dunno, in ACR I could see the order continuing on without Ezio, at least after I got some Master Assassins up and trained. But there were a ton of Assassins in ACR, in all honesty it's the first game that made me think that the size of the order was anywhere close to the size of the Levant Order when Al Mualim was in control.

In Black Flag it seems like you are pretty much just a recruit in the order for most of the game. I feel like a lot of what you do isn't to benefit the Assassins directly, rather just to benefit Edward and his crew.

But there will probably be Assassination contracts to do that will help the order. Still, I doubt that you are going to feel like the key player of the order like you did with Ezio and Connor.

(BTW, they were pretty much the key player of that specific branch of the order in their games)

ze_topazio

06-24-2013, 06:16 PM

I actually agree with this too. Admittedly, it started in AC2 with Ezio feeling like a "chosen one" who was the reason everything could fall into place for the Brotherhood (and then basically becoming a one man army who was the reason there was a Brotherhood at all) and then that happened in AC3 but with an added gump factor.
Another thing I thought would help: Make the historical setting more of a proper backdrop and try to take down the gump factor as much as possible, and focus on the part that was "what really happened is not what history books tell you" of the games. AC1 did that in an amazing way. It had historical figures which died at a different date and/or place (You kill Garnier a year before he actually did as he actually fought alongside Richard and Robert in Arsuf, William was actually a lot older by the time he died, no one knows when Sibrand actually died, Robert actually died in 1193), you have targets inspired in actual historical figures (Majd Addin, Jubair al Hakim, ) and a bunch of fictional targets. Rashid ad-Did Sinan (Al Mualim) is the only accurate in terms of date of death besides William de Montferrat, the only difference is that they actually made William look a lot younger. Actually scratch that, Rashid actually died in Al-Kafh castle so there's another innacuracy. Hey.

A curious thing is that King of Jerusalem was killed by a historical assassin on the same year AC1 takes place yet they didn't use that historical event in the game for some reason.

Jexx21

06-24-2013, 06:20 PM

A curious thing is that King of Jerusalem was killed by a historical assassin on the same year AC1 takes place yet they didn't use that historical event in the game for some reason.

This would be because in AC1 the game wasn't as heavily invested in showing historical events, rather showing the Assassin/Templar conflict and eventually getting to the Apple of Eden. AC1 was a set up piece for Desmond's story pretty much.

ALTAIR-KRATOS2

06-24-2013, 07:02 PM

It woUld be fun if ubisoft developers create s new present day character, a third person if its possible with platforms level, and new parkour movements , more agile movements, a more agile character, new combat moves, the possibility of Drive vehicles like motorcycles, also an open World in the present day, i hope this would be Real in a future Assassins Creed game. It woUld be f***ING awwwwwsome, do yo agree?

pacmanate

06-24-2013, 08:10 PM

The solution is simple: Remove all assassinations from Assassin's Creed!

They already did that in AC3 :rolleyes:

SixKeys

06-24-2013, 08:17 PM

They already did that in AC3 :rolleyes:

Are you saying you don't enjoy watching the game play itself for you? Madness!

Dosenwabe

06-24-2013, 10:56 PM

Imo, the gameplay and mechanics in AC were always the same, always terrible and always completely unimportant. Just a neccessary evil.

Assassin_M

06-24-2013, 10:58 PM

It woUld be fun if ubisoft developers create s new present day character, a third person if its possible with platforms level, and new parkour movements , more agile movements, a more agile character, new combat moves, the possibility of Drive vehicles like motorcycles, also an open World in the present day, i hope this would be Real in a future Assassins Creed game. It woUld be f***ING awwwwwsome, do yo agree?
No

ProletariatPleb

06-24-2013, 11:01 PM

Imo, the gameplay and mechanics in AC were always the same, always terrible and always completely unimportant. Just a neccessary evil.
Normally I would tell you to go burn books but you're right on this account.

LoyalACFan

06-24-2013, 11:16 PM

It woUld be fun if ubisoft developers create s new present day character, a third person if its possible with platforms level, and new parkour movements , more agile movements, a more agile character, new combat moves, the possibility of Drive vehicles like motorcycles, also an open World in the present day, i hope this would be Real in a future Assassins Creed game. It woUld be f***ING awwwwwsome, do yo agree?

Watch Dogs basically looks like a modern AC game. At any rate, it looks a hell of a lot better than Desmond's modern stuff in AC3.

ze_topazio

06-24-2013, 11:28 PM

it looks a hell of a lot better than Desmond's modern stuff in AC3.

Can't say that's a big achievement.

LoyalACFan

06-25-2013, 12:52 AM

Can't say that's a big achievement.

No, but Watch Dogs looks like what I was hoping AC3's modern stuff would be like, albeit on a larger scale with the added bonus of hacking.

Ureh

06-25-2013, 01:14 AM

I think it's possible to make an AC that has "something for everyone". But's that's also one of the reasons why the franchise will continue to be criticised; these days an AC game doesn't know what it wants/needs to be anymore. And you touched on the issue of some people who dislike certain settings/cultures, storytelling, character portrayal, etc.

So, no. It's impossible to reach a positive consensus for AC games.

monster_rambo

06-25-2013, 01:26 AM

Going generic as **** just makes it worst. Stick with what made Assassin's Creed special in the first place. Duality of modern conspiracy/historical events, beautiful cities of the past, ancient aliens and mystery, social stealth, and open world assassination. I don't care what else you do from then but those things need to be focus on.

LoyalACFan

06-25-2013, 01:39 AM

Going generic as **** just makes it worst. Stick with what made Assassin's Creed special in the first place. Duality of modern conspiracy/historical events, beautiful cities of the past, ancient aliens and mystery, social stealth, and open world assassination. I don't care what else you do from then but those things need to be focus on.

This. And avoid focusing on specific historical events; rather, they should try to capture the overall "feel" of a time period. AC1 and 2 did this the best; RDR nailed it. It was a perfect sandbox tour of the Wild West, and it never became Forrest Gump with cowboy hats. You didn't participate in the Gunfight at OK Corral. John never met Wyatt Earp or Geronimo. AC3 had this completely backwards, and shoved Connor into every freaking event that happened, while never really convincing me that I was getting an authentic portrait of the time period.

Rugterwyper32

06-25-2013, 01:47 AM

This. And avoid focusing on specific historical events; rather, they should try to capture the overall "feel" of a time period. AC1 and 2 did this the best; RDR nailed it. It was a perfect sandbox tour of the Wild West, and it never became Forrest Gump with cowboy hats. You didn't participate in the Gunfight at OK Corral. John never met Wyatt Earp or Geronimo. AC3 had this completely backwards, and shoved Connor into every freaking event that happened, while never really convincing me that I was getting an authentic portrait of the time period.

The thing with RDR is that it also didn't aim to be really a historical game, but to capture the feeling of the time. The setting itself was fictional but it still felt like the time it was set in. AC, on the other hand, should focus on accuracy of locations more than anything (and even then, mess around with them to make them enjoyable to traverse), but take down the gump factor as much as possible. I still believe AC1 did this the best, but AC2 handled it rather well. Though I certainly don't mind areas like the Kingdom and the Frontier being a mix of fictional and fitting for the setting.
RDR and AC1 are, in terms of feeling, what I'd like to see of the series: No need to push all these historical events because "Hey, that'd be cool!", as it feels forced many, many times. Same for historical figures. I wouldn't mind an almost all fictional cast with just a few actual figures here and there like AC1 did, and I certainly don't mind some inaccuracies as one of the elements of the series that made it interesting back in AC1 was the idea that all the history you've read about and you know about isn't really what happened. They played a lot more with it in AC1 than games following it, that's for sure.